Coronavirus - Strange times

[cwathen]

It's down to money, both the Scottish and Welsh Governments would go further but they can't because the Treasury won't give them more money or reintroduce things like furlough.

It comes down to the same argument though. If England continues to resist going further (and it would seem certain that even if England does, going further will be limited to the same type of measures introduced in the other nations, certainly not the same type of closures seen before) and the situation doesn't deteriorate, then regardless of why it happened, the English approach will be vindicated. So what possible justification would Sturgeon and Drakeford have to continue wanting to restrict (sorry 'protect' - I must remember Sturgeon has rebranded restrictions to 'protections') their way through the pandemic with wanting tough measures to mirror mainland Europe that were shown not to have been necessary in England?

All the various cliches that have been trotted out for 2 years to make restrictions sound like touchy-feely actions necessary to 'protect' people and keep people 'safe' are fast running out of credibility. The eye-watering £371 billion bill for Covid is already going to cost the UK taxpayer an average of just over £12000 each in tax increases and/or cuts to services. And that's without it getting any bigger, which it will, and without any interest on government borrowing, which there will be. Questioning on to what end we are pursuing these measures and the rejection of the view of it being an apparent no-brainer to restrict will only increase.

The house of cards that is keeping tougher restrictions going in Western countries is very close to toppling if governments keep taking action based on advice from worst-case scenario modelling without much more solid data as to where things are going, what would happen without the restrictions and conversely what a given set of restrictions are actually expected to achieve (and associated impact assessments of the damage they will cause being thorough and diligent, and those assessments being front and centre in the decision to restrict or not, not a mere afterthought). Vague aims like 'stopping the spread' or relying on abstract bits of sociology as justification for how restrictions will apparently succeed (I'm thinking hospitality curfews here) aren't really going to cut ice for much longer IMO. Nor are open-ended measures with no fixed end date. The UK government may well have rejected the restrictions in England for political reasons rather than anything else, but so far it is turning out to have been the right decision. And if it continues to be so, personally I think the era of restrictions being acceptable in the UK is very close to being over.

And as I said before, it will only take one major Western country to draw a line under Covid restrictions for everyone else to follow. I don't believe any Western government wants to carry on doing this, it's just that no one wants to be the first to stop (just like no one wanted to be the first so start them either). Everyone wants the safety net of precedent set somewhere else to fall back on. It might actually be the UK that ends up setting that precedent.

[Jonwo]

I get the feeling we'll probably see Governments stop publishing the numbers in due course so that they're only available if you really want to seek them out. To me, weaning the public and others off the need to see that data needs to happen sooner rather than later.

I do think the rhetoric need to change, I hate the term super spreader event because it makes going out to any sort of fun event seem like you're harming yourself and others.

[Alan de Robson]

It's down to money, both the Scottish and Welsh Governments would go further but they can't because the Treasury won't give them more money or reintroduce things like furlough.

It comes down to the same argument though. If England continues to resist going further (and it would seem certain that even if England does, going further will be limited to the same type of measures introduced in the other nations, certainly not the same type of closures seen before) and the situation doesn't deteriorate, then regardless of why it happened, the English approach will be vindicated. So what possible justification would Sturgeon and Drakeford have to continue wanting to restrict (sorry 'protect' - I must remember Sturgeon has rebranded restrictions to 'protections') their way through the pandemic with wanting tough measures to mirror mainland Europe that were shown not to have been necessary in England?

All the various cliches that have been trotted out for 2 years to make restrictions sound like touchy-feely actions necessary to 'protect' people and keep people 'safe' are fast running out of credibility. The eye-watering £371 billion bill for Covid is already going to cost the UK taxpayer an average of just over £12000 each in tax increases and/or cuts to services. And that's without it getting any bigger, which it will, and without any interest on government borrowing, which there will be. Questioning on to what end we are pursuing these measures and the rejection of the view of it being an apparent no-brainer to restrict will only increase.

The house of cards that is keeping tougher restrictions going in Western countries is very close to toppling if governments keep taking action based on advice from worst-case scenario modelling without much more solid data as to where things are going, what would happen without the restrictions and conversely what a given set of restrictions are actually expected to achieve (and associated impact assessments of the damage they will cause being thorough and diligent, and those assessments being front and centre in the decision to restrict or not, not a mere afterthought). Vague aims like 'stopping the spread' or relying on abstract bits of sociology as justification for how restrictions will apparently succeed (I'm thinking hospitality curfews here) aren't really going to cut ice for much longer IMO. Nor are open-ended measures with no fixed end date. The UK government may well have rejected the restrictions in England for political reasons rather than anything else, but so far it is turning out to have been the right decision. And if it continues to be so, personally I think the era of restrictions being acceptable in the UK is very close to being over.

And as I said before, it will only take one major Western country to draw a line under Covid restrictions for everyone else to follow. I don't believe any Western government wants to carry on doing this, it's just that no one wants to be the first to stop (just like no one wanted to be the first so start them either). Everyone wants the safety net of precedent set somewhere else to fall back on. It might actually be the UK that ends up setting that precedent.

Great post, cwathen - summed up my feelings perfectly with this contribution.

Like everyone else, I am worried about Omicron but science seems to suggest that, despite its transmissability, it's a weak virus made even more weak in people who have been vaccinated (3 jabs now so far for me).

In theory, lockdowns should work - it stands to reason. They should however only ever be used in situations where there is a dire perceived or known threat to life on a significant scale or the NHS risks becoming overwhelmed.

I appreciate that past performance is not a guide to future performance but much of the modelling done to date by scientists (with the very best of intentions on their parts) has not always been anywhere close to accurate.

[james2001]

I think that's part of the problem, restrictions on people's lives and lockdowns should be a last resort, but it's becoming the point where they're almost a first resort, being done at the first sign of trouble, and we should do it "just in case". They've become far too normalised. Hearing far too many people now who think we should be bringing back restrictions every winter now- if a totalitarian country had been doing that pre-2019 everyone would be seeing it as unacceptable, now we have not insigificant numbers of people thinking we should be doing it here and making it a normal part of our lives.

[Jonwo]

Australia is recording record number of cases which TBH was inevitable given the States with the exception of Western Australia have decided to reopen their borders to each other.

Interestingly, they're planning to cut the isolation period to five days which is shorter than even the UK's seven days.

[james2001]

Professor Balloux puts the hysteria and allergy to good news better than I ever could:



Ridiculous that he gets attacked for trying to be positive and optimistic and pointing out we're going to have to live with this virus (and Balloux has been more right during this pandemic more than SAGE ever have), but it seems to be par for the course these days. Good news and the end of the crisis being in sight and living normal lives really does seem to bring out revulsion in some people.

[BBC TV Centre]

I suspect it's automated but the system doesn't check who has already had their boosters.

Which justs adds to the general perception that those in power don't have the faintest clue what they're doing.

Suppose they gotta keep the intern in the basement busy with the Nokia 3210.

In all seriousness though, the message was sent directly from the network operators in conjunction with the government, so that is why every number is getting it irrespective of vaccination status. It is effectively a computer texting the entire subscriber base of the mobile network operator.

After all, we couldn't probably trust them to use Excel to filter the data or maybe it might have been better for one of Boris' buddies to run it, for a pretty penny.

[cdd]

They've become far too normalised. Hearing far too many people now who think we should be bringing back restrictions every winter now- if a totalitarian country had been doing that pre-2019 everyone would be seeing it as unacceptable.

What’s surprising is that it’s often those on the political left calling for restrictions to protect the NHS. Surely they would like the inadequacy of 10+ years of neglect to be exposed? Instead they’re “covering up for tories” by suggesting we have no other option. If restrictions are acceptable, we won’t get increases in healthcare capacity.

[bilky asko]

They've become far too normalised. Hearing far too many people now who think we should be bringing back restrictions every winter now- if a totalitarian country had been doing that pre-2019 everyone would be seeing it as unacceptable.

What’s surprising is that it’s often those on the political left calling for restrictions to protect the NHS. Surely they would like the inadequacy of 10+ years of neglect to be exposed? Instead they’re “covering up for tories” by suggesting we have no other option. If restrictions are acceptable, we won’t get increases in healthcare capacity.

I'm not sure wishing for deaths to prove a point is exactly a good look.

[cdd]

I'm not sure wishing for deaths to prove a point is exactly a good look.

Well of course, once the NHS *is* overloaded to the point of causing a significant number of excess deaths there is no alternative but to restrict.

But I’m talking about the discourse in advance of restrictions. I have rarely heard anyone on the left say “increase NHS capacity so we don’t have to risk lockdowns”.

[Jonwo]

No government would have restrictions every winter, it’s not financially viable